Table of Contents
- How far can the court accept recorded conversations?
- Participant recordings are legal; third-party recordings are illegal.
- Why are student recordings in class recognized?
- The exceptions for third-party secret recordings have virtually disappeared.
- Evidential value of recordings based on the second trial verdict of the Joo Ho-min case.
- Implications of the precedent on automatic recording devices.
- Conclusion and Summary.
How far can the court accept recorded conversations?
Anyone involved in a dispute may wonder if secretly recorded files or transcripts can be used as evidence in litigation. In particular, the complexities of the Communications Privacy Protection Act and the Criminal Procedure Act can often make it difficult for the average person to understand.
The legal interpretation differs significantly between cases where conversation participants record themselves and those where a third party secretly records. Recently, courts have applied stricter standards to secretly recorded materials, making it important to understand in what circumstances they may be recognized as evidence.
This article aims to summarize key points regarding the "evidential value of secretly recorded materials and transcripts" based on the latest precedents as of May 13, 2025.
Participant recordings are legal; third-party recordings are illegal.
The Communications Privacy Protection Act is a law that protects conversations conducted in secrecy. Here, 'secret conversation' implies cases where a third party secretly records without the consent of the involved parties. When a participant records their own conversation, it is not subject to legal enforcement, thus avoiding issues related to criminal penalties or exclusion of evidence.
In other words, if someone records while participating in a conversation, this is legal. For example, if a person records a conversation with a business counterpart, that recording can be used as legal evidence. On the other hand, if a third party secretly records a conversation between parties, this can result in a prison sentence of one to ten years, and such recordings are likely to be deemed inadmissible as evidence in criminal and civil lawsuits.
The recent Supreme Court has also been applying this standard strictly, making the likelihood of a third-party recording being recognized as evidence very low. Understanding and adhering to these legal standards is essential.
Why are student recordings in class recognized?
Even when a teacher is unilaterally lecturing students in a classroom, students in that space are considered one of the participants in the conversation. According to a Supreme Court precedent, a student recording abusive or inappropriate comments made by a teacher during class is not considered a violation of the Communications Privacy Protection Act.
In a 2016 Supreme Court ruling (2016do10715), it was stated that a student's act of recording a teacher's abusive language in the classroom is a record of a conversation in which they participated, which is legally permissible as evidence.
However, issues may arise if a student secretly records conversations between other classmates or private conversations of the teacher. Such cases would be regarded as recordings made by a third party, which could lead to criminal penalties, so caution is advised.
The exceptions for third-party secret recordings have virtually disappeared.
Recent court precedents show that materials secretly recorded by a third party are increasingly unlikely to be accepted as evidence in both criminal trials and civil or family lawsuits.
On January 11, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled (2020do1538) on a case where a parent hid a recording device in an elementary student’s backpack to record a teacher’s class. The Supreme Court regarded this as a violation of the Communications Privacy Protection Act and did not acknowledge the evidential value of the recording.
The court deemed that class sessions conducted in the classroom are considered private conversations, and such secretly recorded materials cannot be used in court. This suggests that similar rulings may follow in related cases in the future.
In the 'spy app recording' case that occurred on May 16, 2024, a recording file installed to prove a spouse's infidelity was not accepted in a family lawsuit. The court clearly stated that illegally obtained evidence cannot be accepted even in family cases.
As a result, the situation continues where third-party secret recordings are essentially not used as evidence not only in criminal proceedings but also in civil and family cases. These precedents indicate a trend towards prioritizing the protection of individuals' privacy and the legitimacy of legal processes.
Evidential value of recordings based on the second trial verdict of the Joo Ho-min case.
Recently, the case of child abuse involving Joo Ho-min's son has drawn significant attention.
On May 13, 2025, the Suwon District Court's Criminal Appellate Division 6-2 overturned the guilty verdict from the first trial regarding special teacher A and acquitted him. The court stated, "We cannot accept the evidential value of the secretly recorded audio files and transcripts," concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove any criminal act.
This case began when Joo Ho-min's autistic son exhibited anxiety during class, prompting his wife to hide a recording device in the child’s coat to capture the teacher’s comments. The recorded content included negative expressions from the teacher, such as describing the child as "having a bad temper."
Although the first trial accepted this evidence as a justified act, the second trial clarified, "It is considered a non-public conversation under the Communications Privacy Protection Act, making it inadmissible as evidence." This ruling emphasizes that even conversations within a classroom can be interpreted as non-public.
The case reaffirms the legal standards and importance of evidence in addressing child abuse issues.
Implications of the precedent on automatic recording devices.
In situations where devices such as home cameras or CCTV are continuously recording automatically without the user's awareness, there exist precedents that state this may not be considered 'listening' under the Communications Privacy Protection Act.
For example, in a ruling by the Supreme Court dated March 29, 2023 (2023do8603), the case dealt with a situation where a home camera installed by a husband at the in-laws' house automatically recorded conversations. It was judged that, in this instance, the recording did not violate privacy laws since the recording was made without the knowledge of the parties involved.
However, this precedent is limited to automatic recording situations, and it is important to note that legal issues may arise if the recorded content is disseminated or disclosed to third parties. Therefore, it is crucial to consider personal privacy and legal responsibilities when taking such actions.
Conclusion and Summary.
If a conversation participant records directly, it is legally permissible and recognized as valid evidence. However, secretly recording someone else's conversation contravenes the Communications Privacy Protection Act and, according to recent Supreme Court precedents, is excluded in both criminal and civil lawsuits.
The legal judgment regarding the use of automatic recording devices may vary depending on the intent and who the user is. Therefore, if planning to use such devices, it is essential to consult with legal experts. The risks associated with secret recordings often outweigh the benefits of acquiring evidence, so if data collection has been conducted, it is safest to consult with a lawyer to formulate a legal strategy.
#secret recording, #transcript, #evidential value, #Communications Privacy Protection Act, #conversation between others, #third-party recording, #student class recording, #classroom recording, #Criminal Procedure Act, #illegally obtained evidence, #civil lawsuit, #family lawsuit, #Supreme Court precedent, #Joo Ho-min case, #special teacher acquittal, #2020do1538, #2023do8603, #participant recording, #automatic recording device, #home cam precedent, #exclusion of evidence, #level of punishment, #legal consultation, #invasion of privacy, #protection of teaching rights, #teacher acquittal, #legal judgment
